GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1399589/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1399589,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1399589/?format=api",
"text_counter": 293,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Olekina",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 407,
"legal_name": "Ledama Olekina",
"slug": "ledama-olekina"
},
"content": "I hope that five minutes will drag and maybe you can give me some additional time. This is something that I believe we need to be very diligent. We need to take our time. What I was saying is that in Section 13, it must be limited to an individual. You know, my brother has got no business dealing with my issues. Clause 19 states- “A public officer shall not be a party to or a beneficiary of a contract for the supply of goods, works or services with any reporting entity.” Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, it is wrong to deny Kenyans an opportunity to perform certain functions. If, hypothetically, you own a company that trades with the Senate, it does not say that Sen. Wakili Sigei, the Senator of Bomet County, is trading with us. I just want us to put this thing into perspective. It should only be limited to an individual. If it is coming under your name, by all means, I agree you should not benefit. So, this issue indirectly ought to be removed. I can dare say that if you go to these developed countries, you will not find such draconian laws. They are so quick to impose them on us, but they do not have them. I am a firm believer that Clause 27 ought to be deleted completely in its entirety. I know the Committee was probably recommending for it to be amended, but in my reading of this Bill, where it says- “A former public officer shall not- (a) act for or on behalf of any person in connection with any specific proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case in which the State is a party and with respect to which the former public officer had acted for, or provided advice to the State”"
}